Indonesia continues to build factories and attract investment. The\nGovernment also measures industrial progress by production volumes and\nthe level of domestic content (TKDN). These measures are important. But\none question has not received enough attention: are Indonesian companies\ncapable of designing and developing the technologies they produce?<\/p>\n
A factory may assemble a product well, while another company still\ndetermines its design, selects its technology and controls its software.\nSuch collaboration is normal in global industry. The problem arises when\nwe can produce goods but cannot change or improve their designs\nourselves.<\/p>\n
That is why Indonesia needs to strengthen engineering. Engineering is\nthe process of applying scientific knowledge to design, test and improve\nproducts responsibly, so they create added value. Engineers do not\nsimply make things work; they also ensure products are safe, durable and\nsuited to users\u2019 needs.<\/p>\n
Indonesia already has Law No.\u00a011 of 2014 on Engineering, which\nprovides a basis for professional competence and responsibility. But\nhaving the title of engineer is not enough. Companies must also apply\nengineering practices in their day-to-day work.<\/p>\n
What does this mean for companies? Teams should document product\nrequirements before starting the design process. They should test\ndesigns before manufacturing goods on a large scale. Companies should\nrecord test results and the reasons for every change. Leaders should\ngive engineers room to raise risks, even when their findings could delay\na product launch.<\/p>\n
Engineers\u2019 responsibilities also extend to public safety. If testing\nreveals a risk, companies must address it before selling a product.\nSales targets must not be an excuse to ignore safety. Company leaders\nneed to support evidence-based technical decisions. This is why\nengineering should be part of corporate governance, rather than being\nconfined to technical or engineering departments.<\/p>\n
The development of electronic devices offers an example. A device may\nwork well in a laboratory but fail when temperatures rise, the power\nsupply becomes unstable or it is used continuously. Testing helps\ncompanies identify problems early. Design improvements can prevent more\ncostly failures after products reach customers.<\/p>\n
This is not merely a matter of technical engineering skills.\nCompanies that master design can adapt products to market needs. They\ncan also repair faults more quickly and reduce their dependence on\nforeign technology providers. In this way, money spent on product\ndevelopment also builds expertise at home.<\/p>\n
Companies must also preserve technical knowledge systematically. If\nan engineer leaves, other team members should still understand how a\nproduct works and its design history. Documentation and mentoring for\nyoung engineers ensure that a company\u2019s capabilities do not depend on\none person.<\/p>\n
Cost is another challenge. Companies need time, laboratories, testing\nequipment and experts to develop technological products. These costs are\nnot always as visible as the cost of buying machinery. As a result, some\nindustrial players find it easier to assess the quantity of goods\nproduced than a company\u2019s design capabilities.<\/p>\n
The Government can help change this way of thinking. In technology\nprocurement, the Government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should\nassess suppliers\u2019 ability to design, test, improve and maintain\nproducts. Such assessments must still ensure reasonable prices, quality\nand fair competition. Research support should also help products reach\ntesting and real-world use, rather than stopping at the prototype\nstage.<\/p>\n
State-funded research must be accountable, but researchers should not\nbe criminalised simply because research or development fails to meet its\nmaximum output targets, or even fails altogether. Advances in science\nand engineering are born precisely from experiments that often fail.<\/p>\n
Excessive fear of \u2018causing losses to the state\u2019 can make engineers\nand researchers avoid risk, opt for safe, low-hanging-fruit research or\neven hesitate to take government funding. This is counterproductive to\ninnovation.<\/p>\n
Administrative measures, such as repayment of funds where evidence of\nirregularities is found, or the suspension of funding, are more\nappropriate responses to genuine failure. Criminal corruption charges\nshould apply only where there is evidence of personal enrichment or\nactual abuse.<\/p>\n
In practical terms, engineers who act in good faith and work\ntransparently with proper documentation are relatively safe. The greater\nrisks lie in lax financial management or pressure to deliver results\nthat could encourage unethical practices. The Government must balance\noversight with room for innovation, so that the research ecosystem is\nnot paralysed by legal fears.<\/p>\n
Universities and professional engineering programmes have an\nimportant role. They can connect theory with industrial challenges.\nParticipants should not only explain technologies that have succeeded;\nthey should also discuss failures, design decisions, risks and lessons\nlearned. This experience can prepare younger engineers.<\/p>\n
Industrial progress needs to be measured more comprehensively.\nAlongside counting factories and production, we should look at the\nnumber of tested designs, companies\u2019 ability to improve products and the\nnumber of engineers developing their skills through real projects.<\/p>\n
Indonesia does not have to produce every component itself. But it\nmust become increasingly capable of understanding, designing, testing\nand developing the technologies it uses. Factories make goods.\nEngineering builds the nation\u2019s ability to keep making better ones.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesias-industrialisation-must-begin-with-engineering-1792122681", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }